Intercomparison of Global Model Precipitation Forecast Skill in 2010/11 Using the SEEPS Score
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Precipitation forecasts from five global numerical weather prediction (NWP) models are verified against rain gauge observations using the new stable equitable error in probability space (SEEPS) score. It is based on a 3 × 3 contingency table and measures the ability of a forecast to discriminate between “dry,” “light precipitation,” and “heavy precipitation.” In SEEPS, the threshold defining the boundary between the light and heavy categories varies systematically with precipitation climate. Results obtained for SEEPS are compared to those of more well-known scores, and are broken down with regard to individual contributions from the contingency table. It is found that differences in skill between the models are consistent for different scores, but are small compared to seasonal and geographical variations, which themselves can be largely ascribed to the varying prevalence of deep convection. Differences between the tropics and extratropics are quite pronounced. SEEPS scores at forecast day 1 in the tropics are similar to those at day 6 in the extratropics. It is found that the model ranking is robust with respect to choices in the score computation. The issue of observation representativeness is addressed using a “quasi-perfect model” approach. Results suggest that just under one-half of the current forecast error at day 1 in the extratropics can be attributed to the fact that gridbox values are verified against point observations.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".